halofanonfandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Madison-A006
I'd like to say thanks for actually reading it enough to see that. I've been having a hard time writing it because of that. I keep thinking of things that add meat to the story, but some of those things should stay in the story itself. I like all of the Info boxes around, I just can't find the right one. I do have a question though: if a Spartan is recognized by different designations, and his current designation may be swapped at a later edition of the story, what is the best practice as far as using his designation as part of the title of the article? Again, thanks. --Madithamonsta (talk) 06:23, February 1, 2014 (UTC) Thanks for the suggestions, I've made some edits to the page and fixed the name based on your feedback. I'm still fixing other issues and working on the character overall. --Madithamonsta (talk) 20:47, February 2, 2014 (UTC) Just a quick note, Kalashnikova rifles (also sometimes known as AKs) would not likely still be in use in the 26th century. The technology that the Avtomat Kalashnikova series is based on would be 500 years obsolete, and better, more recent designs would likely be available similarly to the way AKs are in modern times. Old MA-series rifles would likely be available in this manner, and canon material indicates that they indeed are. Also, a weapon's sights don't determine how accurate it is, contrary to video game logic. Guns are never 100% accurate, and even the most precise weapons will never hit exactly the same spot twice. The barrel generally plays the largest part in deciding the accuracy of a weapon, but the barrel is only the tip of the iceberg in a very long list of things which determine how accurate a firearm will be. This isn't a terribly big deal; this is simply just my two cents. Thanks for the feedback. For the AK's I see what you are saying, and would like to present a counter argument: Versions of the AK are still in use today, even by "modern" countries. Sure, the weapon would sees tons of overhauls and modifications, but they generally don't change the basic rifle. It's about ensuring that the rifle itself is as adaptive as modern weapons. Sure, the likely hood of getting your hands on an AK-47 from the red army days are little to none, but that doesn't mean different iterations of the weapon wouldn't be sold in bulk by some arms traders. To expect that an AK of any type wouldn't be used in 500 years would be like saying that it isn't used today. Since the 50's dozens of AK based rifles models have made their way into the hands of insurgents, national armies, and even consumers. This is if you count rifles that take the original design and completely overhaul it, like the Galil and it's iterations. I do thank you though, because it made me think about it twice, allowing me to think of the different ways AK's could find their way into the hands of some Insurrectionists. On the topic of perfect accuracy of guns, yes, I do agree with that guns will not hit the same place twice. My argument is about the HUD for different weapons and how they don't exactly replace iron sights. Sure, they do make using the gun easier, but they could be improved to give you a more accurate guesstimate of where you are going to hit. The HUD also doesn't allow adjustment for distance or windage, which is something a marksman would need at 100 or more meters away. Thanks again. --Madithamonsta (talk) 22:34, February 5, 2014 (UTC) Thanks for the info. Hadn't actually read anything that dealt with HUDs accounting for ballistics specifically, so I just assumed. Maybe there are HUDs that do account for ballistic arcs, but because in the Halo games ballistics don't really apply, there's no way to confirm nor deny without written proof one way or another. There are video games that have ballistics that calculate in split seconds, but it looks like the "arc" that the bullets follow are actually line segments ranging from 20-100 meters(or their in-game equivalents). In a computed calculation, it will always be line segments rather than an arc, reducing the accuracy of the calculation. Doing the calculation by hand will take allot more time, but, if done properly, will be more accurate. I'm going to do some reading and rethinking, but as of now, I haven't decided one way or another. As for the AK thing, I'm talking derivatives not original rifles. Maybe an AK-12 or AN-94, maybe down the line someone will make a new AK based rifle? Truth is, I've seen some articles on here regarding weapons based on current weaponry such as the M16 or M1911, so why can these things exist based on "obsolete" weapons systems and AK's not be around? The AK IMHO will continue to be infamous for it's usage in the hands of insurgents and "terrorists". As for becoming obsolete, I think that the whole AK platform will definitly need overhauls and modifications to perform on par with more current weapons systems, but I don't think the actual style of rifle will go out. It's too effective. I know 70 years ain't 500, but the M1911 got canned by the US Military as it's official sidearm in favor of the Beretta M9 and now, as I hear, the US Marines are going back to the M1911, for it's simplicity and stopping power. So, sometimes simple is better. On the subject of weapon articles that borrow heavily from the weapons of today, I'll say this: should it be deemed necessary that I make articles about AK based weapon variants, just to include them in the story of my characters, I will gladly do so to make the community happy. Again, thanks for the feedback. --Madithamonsta (talk) 05:05, February 6, 2014 (UTC) We are talking about derivatives as well. As per site policy (the WW2Halo policy specifically), they are not allowed under any circumstance. Sorry, I hadn't actually seen that WW2Halo Policy and nor can I find it. I will trust that you are right though, as you seem to be a moderator. My question still remains about the other current weapon "rip-offs" that can be seen here and here. I question that if these exist, why couldn't something like this exist: Major modifications include: HUD that displays ammo count and barrel temperature that is placed behind the receiver; re-sized gas chamber to compensate for more powerful mixtures of gunpowder; rails for attaching scopes, grips, and other modules(possibly a HUD module to link up to a soldier's HUD); and possibly re-chambered for a larger round. --Madithamonsta (talk) 00:54, February 7, 2014 (UTC) That makes sense. As I indeed haven't seen the actual policy, the explanation does help allot. When people tell me about rules, I generally want to know what exactly the rules state, so that I don't go and violate the rule again on accident. As far as weapon "creation" or "imagination" would this weapon fair well? Example Description: The MA6 was originally developed by Misriah Armory for use specifically by Spartan super soldiers. The 12.7x99 cartridge was chosen because of the enhanced strength of Spartans, allowing them to wield this weapon like most people would wield an assault rifle. Because of this, the UNSC would only be able to field such a weapon with their Spartans leaving other troops with the aging MA5 line of rifles. The UNSC decided that such a weapon would be a waste of an investment, and should be revised to allow general use. Misriah Armory devised a recoil system that would spool up to absorb the recoil force for a burst of up to five rounds and then releasing the remaining energy at the end of the burst, which after five rounds was about equal with two rounds fired at the same time. After a few trials, the UNSC accepted the MA6, and would field it as an experimental weapon for a few battle-groups. Etc. Stuff that talks about how the weapon is balanced, the advantages and disadvantages. Etc. Basically, what I'm getting out of the rules is: as long as it isn't something that exists today, isn't a god weapon, and isn't ridiculously stupid, it may exist. --Madithamonsta (talk) 05:30, February 7, 2014 (UTC) I've got a few image editing tools already, this was just a quick experiment to see what I could come up with in 30 minutes or less. I started with a WA2000 and ended up with that. Quick frame of reference: the barrel didn't even fit onto the page. Extra bonus: woke up this morning and tinkered with it a bit. So here's the sniper variant: Anyways, when I get the chance to actually tinker for a while, I'll probably give these things a nice good editing.--Madithamonsta (talk) 17:29, February 7, 2014 (UTC)